Trio of Lawyers Claim Firm Fired Employees Based on Pro-Trump Opinions

A trio of attorneys formerly with Kain & Scott PA allege their Minnesota bankruptcy firm of firing co-workers for their public support of President Donald Trump, and the police force online. The attorneys making the allegations claim that after they pointed out the disparity, they were also fired for speaking up.

Details of the Case: William P. Kain et al. v. LifeBack Law Firm PA et al.

Court: Minnesota District Court for Stearns County

Case No.: 73-CV-21-3830

The Plaintiffs in the Case: William P. Kain et al. v. LifeBack Law Firm PA et al.

William Kain (name parner), and partners Margaret Henehan and Kelsey Quarberg claim that Kain & Scott President Wesley W. Scott forced them out of the firm after they brought up that his behavior regarding a number of terminations was inappropriate. The plaintiffs allege that Scott instructed the firm operations manager to fire two firm employees citing that they were “racist” because they shared pro-Trump and pro-police social media posts. The plaintiffs confronted Scott and told him they were worried that the previously mentioned conduct was a violation of state law prohibiting economic reprisals or loss of employment due to political affiliation or activity. They also claim they advised him the situation was not good for employee morale and that it put the entire firm at risk. The plaintiffs allege wrongful termination, whistleblower law violations, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious invasion of privacy, and defamation. They seek unspecified damages, including lost wages and benefits, as well as a court order to force Scott or the firm in general to purchase their shares at a previously agreed upon value.

The Defendant in the Case: William P. Kain et al. v. LifeBack Law Firm PA et al.

The trio of attorneys claim that initially Scott apologized for her behavior and officially resigned, requesting that Kain, Henehan, and Quarberg buy him out. However, the next day, Scott withdrew his resignation, and instead terminated the three attorneys who brought the complaint. Scott told other firm staff that the plaintiffs were fired for insubordination, which the plaintiffs claim is not true.

Since the Suit was Filed: William P. Kain et al. v. LifeBack Law Firm PA et al.

Since the suit was filed, the firm continues to use Kain’s name, although it did officially change the name of the firm to LifeBack Law Firm (late May 2021). According to the plaintiffs, Kain’s name is still used on the firm’s website, address, and property signage. The three attorneys who were fired from the firm state that they are shareholders owning a combined 50% of issued and outstanding shares of the firm’s common stock, but that the firm is being difficult in negotiating to buy out their shares. The plaintiffs also claim that Scott cut off their access to firm telephones, email, computer systems, and physical offices (the locks were changed). Scott even called the police requesting they remove Quarberg from the St. Cloud office. He claimed Quarberg was trespassing and physically threatened him.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or wrongful termination, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Chef Claims Wrongful Termination After Injury

A posh California hotel and marina is facing claims of wrongful termination from a former executive chef. The former executive chef, Eric Sauber, filed a suit against Westgroup Portofino LLC and The Portofino Hotel & Marina of Redondo Beach in Los Angeles County claiming the company fired him claiming business was slow due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but that they quickly hired another person without Sauber’s medical disabilities to fill his executive chef position at the resort and marina.

All the Details of the Case: Eric Sauber v. Westgroup Portofino LLC et al

Case No.: 21STCV08200

Court: Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles

Plaintiff, Former Head Chef, Alleges California Hotel Wrongly Fired Him Over Injury

Eric Sauber, former executive chef for a high-end California hotel and marina, filed his complaint in the Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit includes allegations that the resort wrongfully terminated him after he sustained a work-related injury and took legally protected medical leave. Soon after Sauber provided his work-related restrictions to the company, the company allegedly terminated him claiming his position (executive chef) was being eliminated due to inadequate business. According to the complaint, this occurred while the plaintiff was on protected medical leave.

The Plaintiff’s History with the Company:

According to the complaint, Sauber took the job at Portofino in 2019. He worked at the beachside hotel’s restaurant through February 2020. In February of 2020, Sauber sustained a work injury and an orthopedic surgeon placed him on sedentary work restrictions for about a month. After learning of the restrictions, the resort’s human resources director contacted Sauber and let him know he was terminated from his position, and advised him that if business improved he would be reinstated. Contrary to HR’s claims, Sauber soon learned that another employee at the resort was promoted to Sauber’s former position as top chef. The new executive chef’s name was even promoted publicly on the company’s website - advertising a “chef’s table” overseen by chef Hung Quan at BaleenKitchen in the Portofino hotel.

The Basics of the Case: Eric Sauber v. Westgroup Portofino LLC et al

Sauber sustained a slip-and-fall injury in the bathroom while at work. The injuries were serious enough to require arthroscopic knee surgery. After surgery, Sauber took protected medical leave in order to fulfill restrictions prescribed by a doctor. While he was on medical leave, the company told him they were forced to lay him off due to the negative effect of Covid-19 on the hotel’s business. Another hotel employee was quickly given Sauber’s former title and position at the hotel’s restaurant, and was even advertised as the head chef in online advertisements for the restaurant. Sauber’s counsel attempted to settle the matter out of court, but negotiations failed, and Sauber filed suit against Portofino under California's Private Attorneys General Act and the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Sauber cites various violations including: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate his disabilities, retaliation and wrongful termination.

If you need to discuss California labor law violations in the workplace or if you need to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Wrongful Termination Suit Filed in Connection to 2021 Capitol Insurrection Fails

Leah Snyder, former employee of California’s Alight Solutions LLC, claims she was wrongfully terminated from her job after she posted selfies of herself at the U.S. Capitol insurrection.

Details of the Case: Leah Snyder v. Alight Solutions LLC, et al

Court: California Central Court

Case No.: 8:21-cv-00187

The Timeline of Events Related to the Case: Leah Snyder v. Alight Solutions LLC, et al

Leah Snyder, plaintiff in the case, worked for Alight Solutions LLC as a computer programmer for twenty years. In January 2021, Snyder participated in the Capitol insurrection. Snyder claims her participation was limited to peaceful marching outside the building, and taking selfies with police officers on site. Snyder was abruptly fired from her long-time position for taking part in the event. Snyder quickly responded by filing a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Wrongful Termination Lawsuit & Additional Allegations

Snyder claimed wrongful termination based on the alleged violation of the good cause provision in her employment agreement with Alight as well as a California civil rights law that bans people from using threats or violence to interfere with someone else’s constitutional rights. Snyder’s lawsuit also argued that the company violated California's Tom Bane Civil Rights Act that protects against employers threatening employees to prevent their action in actions or events, etc. that are protected by their constitutional rights.

Many Terminations Followed the U.S. Capital Insurrection in January 2021:

The plaintiff in the case, Leah Snyder, is not the only participant in the January 2021 U.S. Capitol Insurrection to lose their job over the event. Others are in similar situations, terminated after evidence of their participation was seen on social media. However, Snyder appears to be one of the first to file a federal wrongful termination lawsuit in connection to the U.S. capital riot-related termination. Snyder filed suit against Alight seeking a minimum of $10 million in damages.

The Employer Moves to Dismiss:

In their motion to dismiss, Alight argued that they were within their rights to terminate Snyder's employment. The company insists they did not fire Snyder based on her political beliefs or her civic participation, but that they fired her because she participated in an illegal act, and there is no law that restricts an employer's power to fire an employee that breaks the law or participates in illegal behavior. In connection with the alleged California Tom Bane Civil Rights Act violation, the company noted that they did not threaten her before she attended the event. They only fired her after the riot occurred and she returned to California. Therefore, according to the argument presented by Alight Solutions, Leah Snyder's First Amendment rights were not violated because they didn’t stop her from attending or participating in the insurrection on Jan. 6th, 2021.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Court Erases Wrongful Termination Verdict, but Defamation Still Costs Allstate $4M

When Michael A. Tilkey pled guilty to disorderly conduct charges, Allstate Insurance Co. fired him from his job as a broker paying $200,000 per year. Tilkey’s resulting wrongful termination suit eventually reached the California appellate court where the court ruled Allstate was within their rights to fire Tilkey. However, this wasn’t the end of the story. 

Allstate’s Decision to Report the Reason for Tilkey’s Termination:

Upon firing Tilkey, Allstate reported that he was terminated due to reasons related to “domestic violence.” While the appellate court found in favor of the carrier in connection to the wrongful termination claims, they found in favor of the plaintiff regarding this announcement of the cause for termination qualifying as defamation. The 4th District Court of Appeal panel found the defamation deserving of an award totaling over $4 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Jury’s Finding that Tilkey Was Wrongfully Terminated Reversed:

While the $4M defamation award is a stiff penalty, it could have been much worse for Allstate. The San Diego County jury that heard the case originally found in favor of Tilkey - finding that Tilkey was wrongfully terminated and awarding the plaintiff over $18.5M. The appellate court found merit in two of the six grounds Allstate listed in their appeal of the jury verdict, and after finding that Allstate was within their rights to fire Tilkey after he pled guilty to disorderly conduct charges, the appellate court slashed the $18.5M award from the jury significantly.

The Incident that Led to the Wrongful Termination & Defamation Case:

Tilkey was employed with Allstate for 30 years. In August 2014, he went out with his girlfriend and they had some drinks. Afterward, they went home and an argument began. Tilkey decided to leave, walked outside to the enclosed patio to get a cool he brought, and his girlfriend locked the patio door. Tilkey repeatedly banged on the glass patio door insisting she let him in so he could gather his things. The girlfriend responded by calling the police. When officers arrived on the scene, they noted the interior trim of the door frame was broken. When searching Tilkey’s travel bag, they discovered marijuana and a pipe. Tilkey was arrested on multiple charges including “criminal damage deface,” possession, and disorderly conduct/disruptive behavior. According to the opinion of the appellate panel, the “domestic violence” label was attached to the last misdemeanor.

Allstate’s Response to the Charges Against Tilkey:

Tilkey’s Allstate supervisors received emails from Tilkey’s ex-girlfriend that were flagged for review. Human Resources investigated the matter in December 2014, learned that Tilkey was arrested, and took a plea deal leading to the dismissal of two of the charges. HR reported to supervisors that Tilkey’s third charge would be dismissed once he completed a “domestic nonviolence diversion program” and that the incident did not include a violation of any company policies. After another email to the company from Tilkey’s ex-girlfriend, the Human Resources supervisor suggested a change made to the report, altering it to list that Tilkey was arrested on a “domestic violence” charge, and changing the report’s conclusion to state that Allstate had since “lost confidence” in Tilkey. Tilkey was terminated on May 27, 2015. The reason cited for Tilkey’s termination was, “the retention of the domestic violence charges suggests that Tilkey engaged in behavior that was construed as acts of physical harm or violence towards another person.” Allstate submitted a standard form regarding the termination to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) which acts as a self-regulatory body for licensed insurance brokers. The standard form (Form U5) included the “reason” for Tilkey’s termination. In response, Tilkey filed suit alleging wrongful termination and defamation.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Dignity Health Medical Assistant’s Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissed

Virginia M. Arnold, former Dignity Health Medical Assistant, was terminated from her job. Upon her termination, she was provided with numerous reasons for her dismissal including HIPAA violations (failing to safeguard a patient’s personal health info), displaying inappropriate materials in the workplace (posting a picture of a shirtless male model at the office), careless job performance, failure to respond honestly to an investigation, and failing to take responsibility for her actions. Arnold filed a lawsuit shortly after her termination claiming discrimination.

Plaintiff Claims Age Discrimination on the Job: 

Arnold’s lawsuit includes allegations of discrimination based on her age and her association with African-Americans. The trial court granted summary judgement to Dignity Health, and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that alleged comments regarding Arnold’s age from co-workers did not apply as the co-workers were not materially involved in her termination. Additionally, they found that another employee expressing surprise at Arnold’s age when discussing her birthday did not qualify as discriminatory. 

No Evidence Found of Connection Between Cited Supervisor and Arnold’s Termination

In her lawsuit, Arnold cited a specific supervisor. Arnold claims she submitted a complaint about the supervisor’s alleged mistreatment of a Black coworker. The plaintiff claimed this situation led to association determination. However, the Court found no evidence that the supervisor involved in the incident had any involvement in Arnold’s termination. Arnold also claimed that Dignity failed to follow their own disciplinary policies, but the Court found that this did not create a triable issue of fact connecting to the plaintiff’s claims. 

If you need to discuss employment law violations in the workplace or file a wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

All the Covid-19 Wrongful Termination Claims Peak

Did you know that the number of wrongful termination claims is climbing? Right when they are needed most, essential employees are being fired for reasons that violate labor codes, and health and safety requirements. 

Common Reasons for Rise in Covid-19 Wrongful Termination Claims: 

1. Nurses and hospital staff are being terminated from hospitals overrun with Covid-19 patients for allegedly talking about PPE (personal protective equipment) shortages.

2. Grocery store workers are fired after reprimands for wearing gloves while working. 

3. Workers at nursing homes and other long-term care facilities (where coronavirus outbreaks have accounted for close to 50% of Covid-19 deaths in some states) report being fired after they point out facility practices that violate health and safety mandates from both federal and state agencies. 

When Your Employer Fires You for Demanding Safety in the Workplace: 

It’s not fair (or legal) for an employer to fire a worker for demanding the right to protect themselves while they work. If a California employee is fired in connection to workplace safety complaints or concerns in connection to the Covid-19 pandemic, they could have grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit or a California whistleblower lawsuit. According to OHSA, employees are guaranteed the right to a safe workplace by federal law - a workplace free of “known health and safety hazards.”

What Constitutes a “Safety Hazard” During an Infectious Disease Outbreak: 

The definition of what constitutes a “safety hazard” has seen significant changes amidst the recent infectious disease outbreak. During a time when the CDC and other state and federal health agencies are recommending that everyone wear a mask in public settings to keep their nose and mouth covered, and that healthcare workers wear facemasks, respirators, and gloves to decrease their risk of infection, an employer who requires employees work without proper recommended PPE could be creating an “unsafe work environment.” OSHA also guarantees employees and workers have the right to speak up about workplace health and safety concerns without fear of workplace retaliation. OSHA regulations prohibit employers from retaliating against employees that complain about unsafe work conditions. Forms of retaliation include termination, demotion, transfers, etc.

If you need to discuss workplace retaliation or if you need to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. 

California EMTs File Wrongful Termination Lawsuit After Protesting Lack of Proper PPE Led to Termination

Two former California Lifeline Ambulance EMTS claim they were fired when they objected to transporting a Covid-19 patient without proper PPE. 

Former Lifetime Ambulance EMTs Claim Retaliation and Wrongful Termination: 

Former Lifeline Ambulance EMTs Kaitlin Wilson and Rayan Melendez filed lawsuits claiming wrongful termination and retaliation. The two EMTS, assigned as partners at work, protested not having properly-fitted N95 masks for use while transporting patients with Covid-19. The plaintiffs claim that they were fired in response to their complaints. 

EMTs’ Retaliation and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Stemmed from Workplace Safety: 

The N95 respirator is a protective device designed for a very close facial fit and very efficiently filtrates airborne particles. The edges of this type of respirator are designed to form a seal around the nose and mouth. According to OSHA training materials, an N95 respirator, a tight-fitting respirator, cannot protect you if it does not fit your face. The mask must form a tight seal with the face and neck to function properly. If the N95 respirator does not fit the face properly, contaminated air can leak into the respirator facepiece allowing hazardous substances into the airway. To allow for proper function, employers must be sure that N95 respirators fit their employees when the PPE is necessary. Employers ascertain a correct fit by performing a fit test while the employee is wearing the same make, model, and size of respirator that will be in use on the job. Checking that the N95 respirator is properly fitted ensures it will provide the protection it is designed for as long as it is used correctly. 

Retaliation and Wrongful Termination Suit Claims EMTs Told Officials PPE Not Properly Fitted

According to the retaliation and wrongful termination lawsuit, the plaintiffs in the case advised Lifeline Ambulance officials that N95 masks were not properly fitted in May 2020, and that without a proper fit, they were not considered protective by the CDC. The plaintiff in the case claims that the CFO’s response was to ask what was “really wrong” with her and claiming that she was “obviously emotional about something.” According to the lawsuit, both EMTs, Wilson and Melendez, were fired later that same month. Lifeline Ambulance listed “harassment” as the reason for their dismissals. 

If you need to discuss employment law violations or have questions about how to file a California retaliation or wrongful termination lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.